He likes to go bye-bye in Air Force One. He will run just for that.
Remember that although the candidates names’ are actually on the ballot, you are voting for electors in fact. So if the relevant authorities of a state allow electors to run who pledge to vote for the CF (convicted felon) to run, who is there to stop them. If this happens in enough southern and plains states to add up to 270 and they are elected, then go to their state capitals on the appointed day in December of 2028 and vote for the CF and the governors sign off on this, and then congress accepts the vote, at which point along this complicated path is there anyone to say STOP?
That works both ways, though. Trump would also have to fight the issue state by state. No problem in blue states, and I have to have to think that many Republicans in red states have their own political ambitions and would love to finally have a clean undisputed shot at getting rid of Trump and advancing their own interests.
Sure he’d get a lot of cooperation, sure it’s possible SCOTUS could step in early and say “this is fine”. We’re now in a world where anything could happen. I’m just pointing out that any battle that needs to be fought state-by-state by Dems, also applies to Trump.
I have no doubt that Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh would have no problem saying that since the 22nd Amendment did not mention DJT by name, then it does not apply to him. Or that it was only meant to apply to Democrats since it was adopted during the Truman administration. Or that the writers plainly intended for it not to apply to someone as totally awesome as His Orangeness. Between Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett he probably has one more vote. So all that needs to happen is for one of the sane 3 justices to die and be replaced by Cannon and he can be president for life. If you think the Supreme Court has too much integrity to make such a ruling, I think that ship left port long ago.
When it gets to the point where, on January 6, 2029, somebody points out that he “cannot be elected President.” If the Supreme Court somehow decides that the 23rd Amendment does not apply, then nobody can say, “Stop” - at least, not without a revolution, which would almost certainly turn into another civil war, in which case, the question becomes, which side(s) does the Army take? (“He can’t be President again, so he’s not our Commander-in-Chief.” “The Supreme Court says he is the President, and it’s your job to defend him.”)
Personally, I think that not even Clarence Thomas would find a way for Trump to be elected directly. I see that someone else has joined me on the “the 23rd Amendment just says he can’t be elected President; nothing about not being elected Vice-President and then becoming President that way” bandwagon.
What wouldn’t surprise me: a group of Democrats introduces a Constitutional Amendment to fix this loophole, and when the Republicans either keep it from reaching either house’s floor or vote against it, the Democrats use it as an excuse that the party wants Trump to be President For Life.
Well, the 23rd Amendment is about giving DC residents a vote.
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution does, in fact, say he cannot be Vice President.
Also, the 22nd amendment only says he cannot be elected. So the route through being appointed House speaker, followed by the resignation of the president and VP would still be constitutional. On the other hand, the persons elected to those positions might well change their minds after the election and the CF be left cooling his heels in the House.
Trump launched his 2020 campaign on the day he was sworn in in 2017, so if he actually has any real world intentions of trying to dispense with the Constitution, we ought to know in five days.
He’s never shown any concern for the Constitution, or the law in general. There’s never been any question of if he intended to violate the Constitution; it’s a given, and has been his entire life. Trump does not willingly abide restraints on his actions of any sort.
The issue is if somebody else is willing and able to force him to obey the Constitution. Something I find unlikely.
In my state, to get on the ballot you need to sign an oath that at the time of declaration, you are “legally qualified to assume office” and that you swear to “support the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Maybe signing that will be the crime that finally nabs him.
Stranger
People concentrated so much on the “insurrection” clause that the “rebellion against the same” clause was overlooked. (“The same” being a clear reference to the Constitution.) By attempting to stay beyond his elected term of office, trump was prima facie in rebellion against the Constitution. Not merely by his actions on J6, but due to the entire mosaic of actions with that end in mind of which J6 was but a single tile.
My bad - it’s the 22nd Amendment.
And if you read my other takes on this (for example, this one from 2011), no, the 12th Amendment does not say that he cannot be Vice President - well, at least not because he would have already served two terms as President. If you think otherwise, then show me where - but if you say “the 22nd Amendment makes him ineligible,” read the fifth word of that Amendment carefully.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
I’m sure most of us agree on that, but unless he’s been found guilty of insurrection in a federal court he can’t be disqualified from office on the basis of “C’mon, everyone knows he did it”. The 14th amendment also guarantees him due process of law, which is good, because we don’t want red states arbitrarily deciding in 2028 that the Democratic nominee is an insurrectionist because “they didn’t close the border” or “they talked to Jyna” or some other BS.
Sorry to spoil your day, but I am not so sure: 75% of 78 year old males in the UK* survive until the age of 85 or more, if I understand this life expectancy calculator correctly:
* I assume the difference between the average UK and someone like trump is statistically in favour of trump, despite the hamberders. Money helps. The probability that someone aged 78 dies the following year is under 5%.
And what, specifically, would make Trump ineligible? Please quote the text in question, and not just an amendment number.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Trump isn’t being elected President a third time. There is nothing in that Amendment that prevents him from becoming President through other means, including, but not limited to, being elected Vice-President, which, you may notice, is not banned by that Amendment.